EIA: Yep, U.S. carbon dioxide emissions still falling

posted at 5:31 pm on April 6, 2013 by Erika Johnsen

While it’s quickly becoming apparent that the earth’s climate sensitivity probably isn’t nearly as cataclysmic as various eco-radicals have insisted for decades now, many greenie types maintain that we still need to be focusing on reducing our carbon emissions — so the dead-set opposition to the hydraulic fracturing technique that often helps produce natural gas is just a little bit bizarre.

On Friday, the Energy Information Administration reported that carbon dioxide emissions fell once again in 2012, bringing the United States’ emissions levels down to a two-decade low. The main culprit? The increasing availability and use of natural gas made possible by fracking, of course:

Energy-related carbon dioxide (CO2) emissions in 2012 were the lowest in the United States since 1994, at 5.3 billion metric tons of CO2 (see figure above). With the exception of 2010, emissions have declined every year since 2007.

The largest drop in emissions in 2012 came from coal, which is used almost exclusively for electricity generation (see figure below). During 2012, particularly in the spring and early summer, low natural gas prices led to competition between natural gas- and coal-fired electric power generators. Lower natural gas prices resulted in reduced levels of coal generation, and increased natural gas generation—a less carbon-intensive fuel for power generation, which shifted power generation from the most carbon-intensive fossil fuel (coal) to the least carbon-intensive fossil fuel (natural gas).

It’s yet another piece of evidence that environmental quality and economic prosperity are not mutually exclusive, even on a large scale; the innovations, efficiencies, and technological developments that come with an advanced economy can be good for both humanity and the planet.

Breaking on Hot Air

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

As the indispensable Anthony Watts has put it, the US is the only major nation to actually meet the Kyoto emissions standards, without ever actually signing on. And we met it down to a tenth of a percentage point accuracy.

Did we factor in the drop due to the decrease in energy use by people no longer driving to work because the don’t have jobs? The reduction because these same people have cut back on heating and cooling because they can’t afford it? The reduction in energy use in manufacturing because we’re not doing as much?

Also consider there has been no warming in the last 15 years, so to quote Hillary “What difference, at this point, does it make?”

I’d rather see a rise as an indicator the the country is up and running.

While it’s quickly becoming apparent that the earth’s climate sensitivity probably isn’t nearly as cataclysmic as various eco-radicals have insisted for decades now

A very misleading statement given the fact that many scientists have reached the opposite conclusion. Cherry picking statistical facts didn’t work when trying to portray the election outcome conservatives prayed to find in pre-election polls, and it won’t work with evolutionary or global warming science either.

Massive props to my home state, PA, which opened up to fracking just before the graph line trended downward. Last year frackers paid out $1 billion in royalties to landowners and $200 million in impact fees to the government. My heating bills are awesomely low.

Sad thing: Ed Rendell (D) was responsible for this when he was Gov. He said “yes” and our R legislature said “of course.”

The main culprit? The increasing availability and use of natural gas made possible by fracking, of course:

20% real unemployment has a larger effect than the use of natural gas. In addition, emissions don’t tell the whole story. According to the Goracle, there’s enough CO2 already in the air to choke a horse.

for those who don’t know, Scientific American used to be a very prestigious journal of science. Part of the total co-opting and culture hegemony of the Left has been to take over periodicals like SA wile still representing it as science

While bayam could give a care…the authors of this piece are just two more left wing climate agitators.

Read Scientific American for decades. Finally had to cancel my subscription because of the unscientific political nonsense.

Gingey on April 6, 2013 at 9:16 PM

I subscribed to SciAm for about 30 years before I gave it up over the overt leftyness. Then they offered a really cheap price to renew for a year at a low enough price they cannot possibly make money on it; so I did but I only read articles so far removed from politics that it would be pointless to slant it.

Plus the article Bayam links is from December 2012, before the Marcotte scandal.
Here is the first commenter to the piece:

1. Sisko 01:20 PM 12/6/12

The writer of this article; Glenn Scherer, seems to promote the spreading of inaccurate propaganda and untrue statements which seems typical of this publication. He writes “scientists believe” vs. accurately writing that some individual person or scientist believes without acknowledging that there are many, many other scientists who view the situation differently.

You are just another fundamentalist environmental hypocrite. You write your screeds using electrons powered by big energy/oil. Why do you hate the children by using energy sources that produce CO2. If you were really a true believer you’d quit suckling on the teat on big energy.

A very misleading statement given the fact that many scientists have reached the opposite conclusion.

bayam on April 6, 2013 at 6:24 PM

Something those scientists don’t tell you is that they reached those conclusions without any facts whatsoever. It’s so outrageous that no one would think this is possible. Yet it’s absolutely true. They have never had a single shred of evidence to support AGW. What’s more, 100% of their models have now been found to be flawed. No warming in 20 years will do that.

Those same scientists are now scrambling. As evidence that they’ve been scrambling for a while is when they started blaming warm weather on CO2. They tried to call this “climate disruption”.

AGW was known to be a hoax 20 years ago. It’s still a hoax today. I’m a programmer. I’ve looked at their numbers. They’re so unreliable that the error margins overwhelm any significant data that could exist in their datasets. Said another way, there isn’t enough precision in their data. This is why they’ve refused to get statisticians to look at their data.